HC orders release of decade-old medical bills of PRTC staffer
The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed a Punjab government undertaking to release the medical reimbursement amount of an employee, pending for nearly a decade despite sanction by the competent authority.
The bills were kept on hold as the record submitted by the employee was misplaced by the corporation and he expressed his inability to produce certified copies of the bills from the doctor again, seven years after he had initially submitted and got approved.
The high court bench of justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa directed for the release of the reimbursement amount, observing that if the respondents have misplaced the medical bills, there is no fault of the petitioner.
In the case in hand, the petition was from one Rajesh Kaushik, an employee of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, a government undertaking. His wife underwent a knee transplant at a Mohali hospital in June 2013, and he submitted medical bills for reimbursement of ₹3.93 lakh. The case was considered by the competent authority and approved an amount of ₹2.12 lakh. However, despite sanction by the competent authority in January 2014, it was not released to the petitioner, as per lawyer Vikas Chatrath. In 2019, he got a letter from the corporation stating that the petitioner should submit photocopies of the medical bills, which the petitioner had submitted at the time of claiming medical reimbursement. He submitted all the duplicate medical bills along with the necessary documents. However, in 2020, he received another communication stating that his medical bills file was not traceable and as such, the petitioner should submit medical bills again.
In January 2021, he received another letter asking him to get the medical bills collected from the office and get them certified by the concerned doctor. He received a few more letters from the department. However, the petitioner expressed inability arguing that it was not possible at that stage to get the medical bills again certified from the doctor. In August 2021, he served a legal notice on the corporation seeking the release of the amount and thereafter approached the high court seeking its intervention.
In the court, the corporation had argued that the medical bills had been misplaced. Hence, he was asked to resubmit the bills. As such the action of the respondents for not releasing the medical reimbursement is legal and valid, it was submitted.
The court asserted that it is the duty of the employer to release the medical bills at the earliest. 'It would be gross injustice at this stage, if the petitioner is asked to get the medical bills again certified from the concerned doctor/hospital. The amount of medical reimbursement, as sanctioned by the competent authority cannot be denied to the petitioner and the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of medical reimbursement to the petitioner violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,' the court recorded asking the corporation to release the sanctioned and approved medical reimbursement to the petitioner within four weeks.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
HC orders release of decade-old medical bills of PRTC staffer
The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed a Punjab government undertaking to release the medical reimbursement amount of an employee, pending for nearly a decade despite sanction by the competent authority. The bills were kept on hold as the record submitted by the employee was misplaced by the corporation and he expressed his inability to produce certified copies of the bills from the doctor again, seven years after he had initially submitted and got approved. The high court bench of justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa directed for the release of the reimbursement amount, observing that if the respondents have misplaced the medical bills, there is no fault of the petitioner. In the case in hand, the petition was from one Rajesh Kaushik, an employee of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, a government undertaking. His wife underwent a knee transplant at a Mohali hospital in June 2013, and he submitted medical bills for reimbursement of ₹3.93 lakh. The case was considered by the competent authority and approved an amount of ₹2.12 lakh. However, despite sanction by the competent authority in January 2014, it was not released to the petitioner, as per lawyer Vikas Chatrath. In 2019, he got a letter from the corporation stating that the petitioner should submit photocopies of the medical bills, which the petitioner had submitted at the time of claiming medical reimbursement. He submitted all the duplicate medical bills along with the necessary documents. However, in 2020, he received another communication stating that his medical bills file was not traceable and as such, the petitioner should submit medical bills again. In January 2021, he received another letter asking him to get the medical bills collected from the office and get them certified by the concerned doctor. He received a few more letters from the department. However, the petitioner expressed inability arguing that it was not possible at that stage to get the medical bills again certified from the doctor. In August 2021, he served a legal notice on the corporation seeking the release of the amount and thereafter approached the high court seeking its intervention. In the court, the corporation had argued that the medical bills had been misplaced. Hence, he was asked to resubmit the bills. As such the action of the respondents for not releasing the medical reimbursement is legal and valid, it was submitted. The court asserted that it is the duty of the employer to release the medical bills at the earliest. 'It would be gross injustice at this stage, if the petitioner is asked to get the medical bills again certified from the concerned doctor/hospital. The amount of medical reimbursement, as sanctioned by the competent authority cannot be denied to the petitioner and the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of medical reimbursement to the petitioner violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,' the court recorded asking the corporation to release the sanctioned and approved medical reimbursement to the petitioner within four weeks.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
High court affirms medical reimbursement as fundamental right
Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana high court has held that the right to life includes the right to medical facilities, and the denial of medical reimbursement violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Emphasising that medical bills must be processed and reimbursed promptly, the court observed that requiring an individual to have their medical bills re-certified by the hospital or doctor, after they were already duly submitted, would constitute a grave injustice. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa passed these orders while allowing a petition filed by Rajesh Kaushik, seeking directions to consider and release the medical reimbursement of over Rs 2.12 lakh along with interest, which was sanctioned via order dated Jan 9, 2014. He also sought directions to quash the letters by the department asking him to re-submit the verified bills after seven years of submitting the original ones. The petitioner was an employee of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Nabha Road, Patiala. His wife got a knee transplant at Fortis Hospital, Mohali, on June 27, 2013. Following this, the counsel for the petitioner, Vikas Chatrath, submitted that medical bills were duly submitted by the petitioner for the purpose of medical reimbursement. This was duly sanctioned and approved by the competent authority in 2014. Even the petitioner submitted duplicate medical bills for release of medical reimbursement. "However, after almost seven years, it is not possible for the petitioner to get the medical bills certified again from the concerned doctor. Once the medical bills are sanctioned, the respondents are duty-bound to release these," Chatrath submitted. Contesting the plea, the state govt submitted that the medical bills were misplaced, and as such, the impugned letters were issued to the petitioner to get the medical bills certified again from the concerned authority/doctor. As such, the action of the department in not releasing the medical reimbursement is legal and valid, the HC was informed. The HC quashed all the letters through which the state was asked to re-submit the bills and directed the authorities to release the sanctioned and approved medical reimbursement amount of Rs 2.12 lakh to the petitioner within four weeks. "The action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of medical reimbursement to the petitioner violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution," observed the judge in its order released last week.
Time of India
29-05-2025
- Time of India
Denial of public employment citing Hepatitis B infection is illegal, rules Kerala high court
Kochi: Denial of public employment to a job aspirant solely on the ground that the individual is afflicted with Hepatitis B virus or a similar infection is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality, the Kerala high court has held. A bench of Justices Amit Rawal and K V Jayakumar delivered the judgment in an appeal filed by a person afflicted with Hepatitis B virus, who had applied for the post of assistant general manager at Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd (FACT). The appellant had challenged the single bench order, which had dismissed his petition seeking appointment to the post. In the original petition challenging FACT's denial of appointment on medical grounds, the single bench had held that every employer requires healthy employees, not patients, and found no illegality in FACT's decision-making process. However, in a previous round of litigation, where the appellant had challenged a communication from the deputy general manager, human resources department of FACT denying him the appointment, another single bench had held that no person can be denied public employment solely on the ground of suffering from diseases like Hepatitis B or HIV. The bench had also requested the central govt to formulate appropriate protocols for individuals infected with Hepatitis B. In its 2023 judgment, the bench had directed FACT to subject the petitioner to a further medical examination by a medical board, preferably constituted by a govt hospital or medical college. Based on the board's opinion, FACT was directed to reconsider the petitioner's appointment, subject to his qualifications and credentials. Following this, FACT again denied the appointment, citing the medical report, which allegedly declared the petitioner medically unfit. This led the appellant to initiate another round of litigation. In Jan 2025, the single bench dismissed his petition based on the report, prompting the present appeal. Upon perusing the medical report, the division bench observed that it clearly stated the appellant could participate in all activities and training, including the job, and was fit for work, provided universal precautions were followed. Accordingly, the court directed FACT to issue the appointment letter to the appellant within one month.
